This is the English translation of the Chinese term kuang Chan. The term was first used by Confucian literati in the Song dynasty, including followers of the neo-Confucian school of principle (lixue), as well as by some more conservative members of the Yangming school of neo-Confucianism in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties. Kuang Chan negatively referred to the kinds of inappropriate practices of Chan iconoclasm that broke with traditional scriptural-doctrinal studies, intellectual understanding, and meditational or other institutional practices and cultivations, by focusing solely on the sudden awakening of every person’s original mind or nature. In a broader sense, this term was used in criticism of the mainstream Chan of the five houses, or at least of the problems or radical aspects of the five houses. Although iconoclastic tendencies did exist within the five houses, it was not criticized as “mad Chan,” before the late Ming, by any Chan literature in the Five Dynasties or in the Song. On the other hand, since there were opposing tendencies to the Chan iconoclasm within the five houses, it is not proper to characterize the entire five houses as mad Chan.
In fact, the term was more specifically targeted at the later generations of the Yangming school of neo-Confucianism (yangming houxue), at persons such as Wang Gen (1483–1541), Wang Ji (1498–1583), Yan Jun (1504–1596), Ruo Rufang (1515–1588), and Li Zhi (1527–1602). This indicates that “mad Chan” more often referred to some post-Yangming neo-Confucian teachings and practices, which expanded some aspects of Wang Yangming’s (1472–1528) original thought, further assimilated the Chan style and method of sudden enlightenment from the five houses, and served to immediately realize the original whole of the innate knowledge (liangzhi benti). The so-called madness of this “Confucian Chan” lies not only in that the necessity of gradual cultivation stressed by the school of principle and the tradition of Confucianism was discounted, but also in that even effort or cultivation (gongfu) was increasingly dismissed in terms of the self-realizing and complete liangzhi benti. It thus presents a great challenge to the moral teaching of Confucianism in the eyes of many Confucian scholars, despite the historical fact that radical Confucian Chan is one of the results of the growing discontent with the dogmatism and lack of creative vitality of the school of principle and the long tradition of Confucianism.
One of the most important Chan masters in history and the founder of the Hongzhou school, Mazu was born in Shifang county, Hanzhou prefecture, in Sichuan, and entered monastic life during his teens in Zizhou with Monk Tang (684–734, also known as Chuji, a disciple of the second generation in the lineage of Hongren). Mazu was officially ordained under the preceptor Yuan in Yuzhou at the age of 21. He also studied with Wuxiang, the founder of the Jingzhong school. Around 730, Mazu left Sichuan for a journey of “wandering and learning.” He then met the master Nanyue Huirang at Mount Heng in Hunan and studied with him for about 10 years. In the early 740s, Mazu started to teach at several places in Fujian and Jiangxi. Within three decades, he had acquired great fame and influence. In 772, he was invited to Kaiyuan Temple, a government-sponsored monastery in Hongzhou (present-day Nanchang, the capital of Jiangxi Province) and taught there until his death in 788.
During his long teaching career of over 40 years, Mazu attracted and trained a great number of followers, led a large Chan community, and built a strong connection with, and gained support from, literati and local government officials. A list of Mazu’s known disciples numbered 145. Many of these disciples were also successful and famous abbots. Emperor Xianzong (r. 805–820) granted Mazu the posthumous title “Chan Master of Grand Quiescence” (Daji Chanshi), and Kaiyuan Temple and Mazu’s pagoda were restored by order of Emperor Xuanzong (r. 846–859) after the Huichang persecution.
Modern scholarship on Mazu and his Hongzhou school, based on the Song narratives of classical Chan, has involved two interrelated perspectives. First, it has seen Mazu and his Hongzhou school as a revolutionary, or iconoclastic, movement that broke away from previous Buddhist traditions and overturned established norms and practices. Second, it has regarded Mazu and his disciples as the founders of a new and independent religion and initiators of a new form of practice widely known as encounter dialogues. These two perspectives have been seriously challenged by contemporary scholarship on Mazu and the Hongzhou school. The radical, iconoclastic image of Mazu and his disciples, portrayed by the stories of Chan encounter dialogues, is basically a Song editorial revision and addition to the raw materials originally circulated, many of which could no longer be seen by later generations.
By critically analyzing and separating Mazu’s more reliable sermons from those later produced and less reliable materials, especially those encounter dialogues attributed to him, contemporary scholars demonstrate that Mazu was not radical enough to be called an iconoclast. In his sermons, Mazu straightforwardly instructed students, used relatively conservative rhetoric preexisting in early Chan, and frequently quoted and alluded to scriptural passages. He also advised students to comply with monastic precepts, follow mentors, and accumulate good karma. His notion of no-cultivation and no-meditation (buxiu buzuo) quite clearly aimed at overcoming the confusion of meditation with enlightenment, or the means with the goal. It was never meant to stop the practice of meditation, but rather presupposed the ongoing practice of the Buddhist path.
Mazu’s attitude of working within tradition does not mean that there was a lack of innovation, or creative reformulation, of Buddhist teaching in terms of practical needs. Mazu’s notions of “this mind is Buddha (jixin jifo)” and “the ordinary mind is the way (pingchangxin shi dao)” held wide appeal to Chan Buddhists and Chinese people, which contributed to the popularity of his school. Through these notions, Mazu emphasized that enlightenment cannot be sought outside the human mind and its everyday activities. The everyday activities or functions of the human mind, including its ignorance and delusion, are necessary conditions and presuppositions for enlightenment. Without delusion or ignorance, there would be no enlightenment. This was a strictly relational perspective on enlightenment, which can be justified by the teachings of Mahayana scriptures, but was formulated in fresh idiomatic terms.
Mazu’s teaching caused some concern with its possible antinomian consequences and garnered criticism from Zongmi and Nanyang Huizhong for its failure to distinguish between ignorance and enlightenment, or defilement and purity. Scholars have pointed out that this was a legitimate concern, but there is no evidence that Mazu advocated any antinomianism or deluded mind. To counter the misunderstanding of “this mind is Buddha,” Mazu later used an apophatic proposition that there is neither mind nor Buddha and made clear that all his teachings were nothing but expedient means for therapeutic purposes, pragmatically useful only to specific people in specific situations. As such, Mazu’s teaching was neither merely a foreseeable continuation of the received tradition nor a dramatic shifting of paradigm prompted by an iconoclastic atmosphere.
The full title is Jiangxi Mazu Daoyi Chanshi Yulu (Recorded Sayings of Chan Master Mazu Daoyi of Jiangxi). It is one of the most influential Chan texts of the yulu (recorded sayings) genre and records the life and teachings of Mazu Daoyi, the founder of the Hongzhou school and one of the most important figures from the classical age and probably the entire history of Chan. Contemporary scholars have studied the origin and history of its literary formation. Although this text is regarded as an authoritative source of authentic Chan teachings, its literary provenance was relatively late. The text was first published during the Northern Song dynasty in the 11th century as part of an anthology called Sijia Yulu (Recorded Sayings of Four Masters) by a member of the Linji school. The extant version of this text is an edition from the late Ming dynasty.
Typical of the Chan “recorded sayings” genre, this text includes three parts: biographical information, sermons, and dialogues. In terms of studies on the early textual sources of Tang dynasty, scholars believe that the biographical information on Mazu’s life presented in this Yulu is basically accurate, serving both as a historical record of the life of a renowned Chan teacher and as an idealized depiction of a unique religious personality. The sermon part is also reliable, based on early versions of edited transcripts of various talks given during Mazu’s teaching career, including his notions “this mind is Buddha” and “the ordinary mind is the Way.” However, there is a lack of homogeneity between the sermons and the dialogues regarding their rhetorical styles. The former used relatively conservative rhetoric, quoted scriptures, and directly instructed students, while the latter used unconventional rhetoric and pedagogical means, spontaneously interacting with the students. The latter part was also considered the beginning of the classical tradition of Chan encounter dialogues. Scholars have recently revealed that among these recorded cases of dialogue, only a few appeared in the late Tang and Five Dynasties Chan texts. Most of them, scholars believe, were Song additions to the records of Mazu, although it is difficult to prove their complete non-existence in history. The historical authenticity and accuracy of these dialogues are therefore questionable, and any use should be done with caution and critical analysis.
A Buddhist nun of the Southern Song dynasty and one of the earliest female Chan masters, whose biographical information and recorded sayings were included in the two Song texts of the transmission of the lamp literature: the Liandeng Huiyao (compiled in 1183) and the Jiatai Pudeng Lu (compiled in 1204). Miaodao was a native of Yanping (in present-day Fujian province) and the daughter of a literatus-officer, Huang Shang (1044–1130), who once served as the head of the Ministry of Rites. Even from her youth, Miaodao showed no interest in worldly pleasures, but instead took great delight in sitting meditation. At the age of 20 she became a nun, and she soon visited various Chan masters. Before meeting with the Linji Chan master Dahui Zonggao, she studied with the Caodong master Zhenxie Qingliao at Mount Xuefeng. In the summer of 1134, she attended a retreat with the then guest instructor Zonggao, and after that, she became Zonggao’s disciple. Zonggao emphasized the necessity of a full awakening to non-duality through meditation on a series of key phrases (huatou). Following Zonggao’s instruction, Miaodao attained her sudden awakening and became Zonggao’s first dharma heir. It was also with Miaodao that Zonggao first successfully tested his unique kanhua Chan approach. After her awakening and certification by Zonggao, Miaodao took abbacy in several nunneries. She died at Jingju Nunnery in Wenzhou.
This is one of the main teachings of Mazu Daoyi, the founder of the Hongzhou school of Chan Buddhism. The original Chinese expression of this teaching—jixin shi fo or jixin jifo—can be rendered more completely as “this very mind is Buddha.” The mind in the context refers to the everyday mind of any human being, that is, the ordinary mind of seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing (jian wen jue zhi), including the aspect of ignorance and delusion. By emphasizing “this mind is Buddha,” Mazu taught his students that they should not seek enlightenment outside the human mind and its everyday activities. The everyday activities or functions of the human mind, including its ignorance and delusion, are the necessary conditions and presuppositions for enlightenment. Without ignorance or delusion, there would be no enlightenment. This is a strictly relational perspective on enlightenment and challenges any escapism or any attempt to isolate enlightenment from its existential-practical contexts and conditions.
Scholars have examined the scriptural roots of Mazu’s identification of the ordinary human mind and the mind of the Buddha in the Indian tradition of the tathāgatagarbha (rulaizang/Buddha-nature) thought, especially in the theory of one mind and two aspects offered by the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana (Dasheng Qixin Lun). Although some scholars have pointed out that ideas similar to “this mind is Buddha” are found abundantly in the teachings of the early Chan masters, which antedated Mazu’s, others have argued that among reliable examples, only Shenhui used the similar expression once, but it was not a major theme in Shenhui’s theoretical framework.
Historically, the non-duality of the deluded mind and the true mind in Mazu’s teaching was a target of criticism even within Chan Buddhism. Nanyang Huizhong and Zongmi, among others, attacked this teaching for its failure to distinguish between ignorance and enlightenment, defilement and purity, and expressed their concerns about its antinomian consequences. This criticism was echoed by some contemporary scholars in their critique of Chan thought and its tathāgatagarbha (rulaizang/Buddha-nature) roots. However, others argued that Mazu did not advocate any antinomianism or deluded mind. To counter the misunderstanding of, and attachment to, his teaching on “this mind is Buddha,” Mazu later on used a more apophatic proposition, “there is neither mind nor Buddha.” Mazu and his close disciples made clear that “this mind is Buddha” and other teachings are nothing but expedient means for therapeutic purposes, pragmatically useful only to specific people in specific situations. As pragmatic contexts or situations changed, Mazu and his disciples provided different teachings. No essentialist standpoint was ever adopted.
A Chan master of the Linji school in the Ming dynasty, Yuanwu was born into the Jiang family in Yixing in Changzhou Prefecture (in present-day Jiangsu). He attended a village school at the age of 6 but had to take up farming and fishing to support himself at 15, then got married the next year. At the age of 21, after reading the Platform Sūtra, he was attracted to Chan, and at the age of 29, he left his family to become a monk under the master Huanyou Zhengchuan (1549–1614) at Mount Longchi. In 1602, he became the manager of the monastery after Zhengchuan traveled to Beijing. During that time, Yuanwu attained sudden enlightenment when he passed Mount Tongguan. Zhengchuan granted Yuanwu the dharma robe and recognized him as his dharma heir after returning from Beijing. In 1617, Yuanwu succeeded his teacher to become abbot at Mount Longchi. Later, he also took abbacy at five famous Chan temples. When he died in 1642, he had ordained more than 200 people and had 12 certified dharma heirs. His dharma lineage was considered the renaissance of the Linji school in the Ming. He was famous for resuming the use of beating and shouting as training methods. His teachings were preserved in the Tiantong Miyun Wu Chanshi Yulu of 12 fascicles. He was also involved in a public debate with his disciple, Hanyue Fazang, over the understanding of whether there were different principles of the “five houses” derived from the origin of the perfect circle (yuanxiang), or no principles at all but just “directly pointing to the human mind (zhizhi renxin).” He published his Pi Wangjiu Lueshuo (Outlined Refutation of the Vain Rescue) in 1638 to criticize Hanyue Fazang.
A Buddhist nun of the late Tang dynasty, she was the only female Chan master who had a record of her own biographical information and short conversations in the Jingde Chuandeng Lu (Jingde Era Record of the Transmission of the Lamp), compiled in 1104. A contemporary of Linji Yixuan, Moshan was the dharma heir of Gao’an Dayu (d.u.), who inherited Mazu Daoyi’s disciple, Guizong Zhichang (d.u.). Moshan was once visited by Guanxi Zhixian (d. 895), a disciple of Linji Yixuan. In their encounter dialogues, Moshan refuted Zhixian’s challenge asking her to transform herself into a male by revealing that the enlightened mind was devoid of form, male or female. Zhixian decided to study with her for three months, serving as a gardener in her nunnery, and later acknowledged Moshan’s contribution to his enlightenment in addition to his teacher’s. The story was used and commented on repeatedly by the later masters such as Dahui Zonggao, Yuanwu Keqin, Hongzhi Zhengjue, and Dōgen.
This is the original Chinese expression for “silent illumination Chan,” the characterization of an approach or style in Chan practice that was developed during the Song dynasty by the Caodong school and became one of the two dominant trainings of Chinese Chan, as opposed to the kanhua Chan. Although this silent illumination approach first took shape with the Caodong master Furong Daokai and his disciples of two generations, it was Hongzhi Zhengjue, one of Furong’s second-generation disciples, who achieved culmination in formulating and promoting the silent illumination approach. Hongzhi’s Mozhao Ming (“Guidepost of Silent Illumination”) is considered the manifesto of this silent illumination approach, in which the term “silent illumination” (mozhao) is most noticeably used.
The words “silent” (mo) and “illumination” (zhao) represent two essential requirements in this approach. Mo refers to quiet sitting meditation, the practice of calming, and the cultivation of stillness, in which all words and thoughts, including those of striving for enlightenment, must be forgotten. Zhao refers to the clarity of the mind, the rise of wisdom, or the realization of one’s inherent Buddha-nature. Different from the kanhua Chan, which focuses on observing the key phrase of a gong’an, the silent illumination Chan places great emphasis on just sitting meditation and teaches that, by simply sitting and meditating, one’s inherent Buddha-nature or enlightenment will manifest itself naturally in the state of stillness. Through sitting meditation, one’s whole being, including both body and mind, could become one with the full universe and immerse into the realm of enlightenment.
Recent study of the silent illumination Chan has indicated that many aspects of this approach were quite orthodox, such as the notion of inherent enlightenment, the notion of Buddha-nature functioning through all things, and even the doctrine of the interacting (huihu) of the ultimate and phenomenal. However, its simplified style and emphasis on just sitting in stillness were quite distinctive and subverted the traditional distinction of non-enlightenment and enlightenment, practice and realization, in its own way. Dahui Zonggao, the famous advocate of kanhua Chan, criticized this approach for its passivity of sitting in stillness and for its canceling of the importance of enlightenment. Although Dahui’s criticisms were eloquent and influential, they were not all accurate. Hongzhi’s silent illumination approach did not equate itself with one-sided stillness or complete passivity. Rather, he acknowledged that a certain degree of effort to eliminate delusion, wipe out dust, and let the original mind of enlightenment shine forth in sitting meditation is still needed.
It seems a direct violation of the Buddhist teaching of impermanence and the iconoclastic spirit of the Chan tradition for Chan disciples to preserve a master’s body after his death. However, this is exactly what some faithful and devoted disciples did to their deceased masters. From the early period of Chan down to modern times, a significant number of Chan masters have been mummified after death and enshrined at monasteries for worship. The earliest example of mummification in Chan is Daoxin, who later became the fourth patriarch of Chan Buddhism. According to an early 8th-century text, Chuan Fabao Ji, Daoxin meditated until his death. After his body survived for some time, his disciples further wrapped his body in lacquered cloth to mummify it and also erected a stela to inscribe a eulogy for him. This case and others indicate that artificial mummification was used to extend the original incorruptibility and purity of the body of an enlightened master, believed to be the result of the purity of his mind, his accumulated merits, and spiritual power.
The most famous case of a lacquered mummy is that of the sixth patriarch, Huineng, which is believed to still be kept at Nanhua Temple in modern-day Guangdong province. The mummy, and its mystic power, soon became the subject of numerous legends about the attempted theft or destruction, as it was obviously a target of possession in the power struggle within and outside Chan Buddhism. Because of this mummy, the temple itself became a thriving pilgrimage center. More than 800 years later, another mummy was enshrined along with Huineng’s at this temple, that of the Chan master Hanshan Deqing, in the late Ming dynasty. Recent scholarship on the mummification of Chan masters has called attention to the underlying factors of this phenomenon, including traditional Chinese attempts to prevent the decomposition of the corpse, the pan-Chinese belief in an appropriate resting place for the soul after death, the Indian Buddhist worship of relics, the ritualization of the spiritual power of Chan masters, the economics of Chinese Buddhist monasteries, and so forth.